tv [untitled] June 25, 2013 3:00pm-3:31pm PDT
>> so, supervisor, ken rich, oewd. there is no required -- well, there always has been what's called a city report where every year the city has to report and the city being in this case the planning director and the director of public health have to report on the operation of all cpmc's obligations. speaking to your point, we added -- going through the planning commission through the land use committee, a clause that requires the city report to also report on the status of the work force program including how the money is being spent and the performance of the 40% hiring and the construction hiring. and that report is done every year and goes to the planning commission, and is then also reviewed by a special reviewer who then writes a letter to the board of supervisors sort of commenting on whether everything -- it looks like it's in order. so, in a couple different ways the board is provided with that information simply by looking at the city report, which is obviously available to you, go
through the planning commission. and/or looking at the second work that the special reviewer does. >> i do understand that, and that's a written report which sometimes can get buried. so, that's why i was hoping that we could -- and i don't think this has been necessarily done, but this is -- i'm not suggesting this isn't an important deal for the city as a whole, but this is in the backyard of the western addition community and in the past many projects had moved forward, both redevelopment planning and otherwise, what promises to the community that have not necessarily, you know, been the follow through associated with those projects, the hiring of the community members. there's been no way to directly hold companies accountable in a forum like the board of supervisors. it then -- we relied on city employees who, of course, are charged with the responsibility
based on the terms of the agreement, but unfortunately in this particular case, as much work has gone into this, as much support there is for this project, i would like to add an additional layer that would make sure that there is a presentation at the board of supervisors level to continuously update us on an annual basis in addition to the planning department on where we are with the hiring components of this particular agreement. >> supervisor breed, i certainly hear your comments, but do you have amendment language on top of what has already been add today this development agreement that you'd like to propose? >> no. >> okay. why don't we proceed with additional colleagues and continue to have this conversation. supervisor wiener.
>> thank you, mr. president. this is, this is very exciting that we're here today. this is just an absolutely wonderful project for the city. cathedral hill is going to be i think a spectacular facility. st. luke's has been long overdue to be really upgraded and improved so it can be of even better service to the community. and i really do hope that st. luke's will be on a trajectory of being a really -- a full-service facility, not just inpatient, but also outpatient. and then, of course, davies which sometimes -- i've gotten lost in the mix a little bit in all the drama around this project. but davies, which is so critical to the castro neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods which is going to be also significantly improved as a result of this project.
so, this is all very exciting. the one thing that i -- we talked about in committee and i think it is what it is, you know, ideally it would have been great to have more psych beds. i understand that these were long and extensive negotiations, and i support this deal, but that is something that was a disappointment to me and i know to others. and i guess i have a question for director garcia. just in general about where we are and where we're going in terms of off-site beds and related capacity. it it just seems like we don't have enough capacity and it causes problems. >> well, throughout the conversations, the capacity issue is about flow from your beds to the community. remember that psych beds are locked beds, so, we're locking people up in these beds. and the goal is to stabilize
individuals and get them into the community as soon as possible. and, so, what we found with the 18 existing beds at cpmc, we thought that we could really work with them closely to ensure that people are discharged from those beds as soon as they're stabilized and to date they have not utilized all their 18 beds on a consistent way. so, we believe, as we believe that people should be at the least restricted level of care, we also, when we were negotiating around st. luke's with many beds, we thought that that was not the right financial direction for st. luke's in order for them to stabilize their finances. so, we will work closely and the innovation fund has over $2 million focused in on mental health services. and, so, we will be working closely with cpmc and the door street urgent care center to ensure that they maximize the use of their existing beds. >> okay, i appreciate that. i know there are a lot of
different perspectives about how our system of addressing mental illness should be structured. and it is just such a significant issue in the city, and i think it's important for not just relating to cpmc because cpmc is one set of facilities, but for our entire medical system to focus on that. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> thank you. supervisor kim. >> thank you. also really happy to finally see this proposal coming back to the full board. i think that i was one of the supervisors where i had moments last year wondering where this project was going to be headed. but i'm really happy with what is coming before us today. i think it's a really balanced plan of affordable housing, which actually is required by the van ness special use district, the innovation fund which will help support a lot of our charity care throughout
our city, but particularly in the central part of san francisco, including the tenderloin. of course, jobs, our transit and pet safety needs. i'm really excited to see we will have $4.4 million coming into the tenderloin to fund our little saigon tenderloin transit program which will increase pedestrian safety issues in our neighborhoods, but also increase lighting in our neighborhood. tenderloin has -- is one of the neighborhoods with the least number of lights, physical lights. and, so, often a concern of -- public safety concern for many of our residents and our neighborhood is incredibly excited that this information is ~ investment is going to be made. we're excited to see [speaker not understood] safe passages, [speaker not understood], tenderloin elementary school, and several other organizations, to really create
a volunteer-run program that will have adults and young teens out on certain corners in the tenderloin just watching as school children walk back and forth between school and their after school programs and at home. and our office participates in safe passages once a month. it's real guide ~ good to see that program will get infrastructure funding. so glad to see this move forward. i think there is a much more balanced concept that's here, a smaller cathedral hill, a larger st. luke's which will balance health care services throughout the southern and northern parts of our city. again, i did have the same concerns that i think several of my colleagues brought up, including supervisor wiener around what is the best way for us as a city to address mental health issues. it's certainly something that many of our constituents and residents bring up at our office all the time, whether the services available, what are the resources, how can we work closely with dbh and all
facilities on psych beds. that is one part of the solution, but i look forward to working with dph on that issue, but i know they will be funding a lot of great clinics in our district through the innovation fund and i will support some of those efforts. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. so, clarity was provided to me with regards to the annual reports from the compliance officer for the project of the whole that will include the work force component. so, i'm completely satisfied with that being the language in the resolution as well for that particular item to take place and it includes exactly what i'm asking for. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor breed. i want to make it clear to the public section m 82 2, we significantly expanded the monitoring enforcement provisions. ~ so, not only is cpmc required with the compliance report to the city, but there is
third-party review of that report. there will be a 30-day public comment on that report. this happens annually. there will be a city report on compliance to address lists of specified issues. there will be annual hearings on compliance of both planning and health commissions. on top of that, there will be a third-party monitor in case there are issues around compliance and then ultimate responsibility for initiating any necessary enforcement actions will continue to rest both with the director of planning, the director of health, and the board of supervisors. we will also continue to have the power to direct our city attorney to initiate any enforcement actions, which is the case for all aspects including the local hiring provisions i know supervisor breed is concerned about. the last comment i just want to make is i want to join supervisor wiener and frankly i think the comments that and the perspectives that many of us have had around issues around mental health. i think many of us were interested in seeing if there could be more done specifically, but we understand from our department of public
health their pleb speculative on these matters and their assurances that they have future plans to treat patients who are too sick for our patient care to deal with mental health needs of our prison realignment program and really to address what would be a potential reduction in acute and subacute beds. so, we will of course continue to monitor this and i want to thank director garcia for her answers to our questions here. with that, colleagues, any final comments? as i said before, we first need to vote on the general plan. so, madam clerk, why don't we take a roll call vote on items 27 through 29. >> on items 27 through 29, supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye.
supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. there are 11 ayes. >> these ordinances are passed on the first reading. [gavel] >> and on the balance of the items related to cpmc items 30 through 39, madam clerk, colleagues, can we do this same house same call? without objection, these ordinances are passed on the first read and resolutions adopted. [gavel] >> thank you very much. at this time why don't we go to our 3:00 p.m. special order. madam clerk, could you call items 40 and 41? >> items 40 through 41 is the board of supervisors sitting as a committee of the whole pursuant to a file approved june 18th, 2013, for a public hearing to consider objections to a report of assessment costs for ip specs and/or repairs of lighted properties submitted by the director of public works for inspection and/or repairs ordered to be performed pursuant to administrative code section 80.
>> colleagues, per usual, we have a presentation from dpw on the report of the assessment costs. and if there are members of the public that wish to speak on this item, you'll each have two minutes after dpw presents to make your case to the city. so, to dpw. >> thank you. my name is robert kwan. i'm with the department of public works, and this report is for properties inspected [speaker not understood] and repairs made on invoice by the city under the accelerated sidewalk abatement program from april, 2012 through april 2013. ~ during that period, the department inspected and/or caused to repair sidewalks and curbs fronting public and private properties throughout the city in response to
delinquent notifications issued in response to service requests seedthv by the drape received by the city attorney's office, mayor's office of disability, [speaker not understood], issuing 73 notices of violation and abatement orders ~ and 111 asap x 11 04s at a cost of $8 68,014.97. for light notice of violation and abatement orders, $693,88 6 .80 for asapx 11 04s for a total of $76 2,701.77. 82 invoices were sent out to property owners of which 43 invoices were paid along with the city to recover $9,0
82.[speaker not understood]. the balance [speaker not understood] sidewalk repairs or inspection costs placed on their property tax or otherwise have not paid the city in a timely manner. in this report we are submitting 39 properties with outstanding invoices totaling $59,73 2.68 to be placed as an assessment on the property tax rolls. >> thank you. unless there are any questions to dpw, why don't i now ask if there are members of the public that have issues with this report or if you have any comment to this report, you are welcome to provide your public comment. and after you do, we'll ask you to have a conversation with our dpw staff to see if this matter can be resolved before we end this hearing. and somewhere down the broken sidewalk road ♪ our roads are going to cross again
and somewhere down the broken road i know you're gonna find these funds again ♪ and you'll fix the sidewalks and you'll fix them i know you're gonna mend ♪ >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon. my name is [speaker not understood] and i'm owner of gas station in cesar chavez at 28 31. ~ starting may 2011 until today, which over two years and three weeks, construction to improve cesar chavez entrap our business and almost very close to put us out of business.
we contacted contractor. we came here to city. we hired attorney. how we can be compensate for this entraption? and they using our property for the equipment ~. and they recently received invoice, i have to pay for the sidewalk report. it's two years, i lost almost 30% of my business. [speaker not understood], tv, newspaper, everybody said, don't go to cesar chavez because of trap. this is reducing our business, and another one is construction. sometime absolutely they close us. now they come to us and say you have to pay $6600 to repave the sidewalk, which they -- many times they use it to find a
pipe or do cutting the concrete. i want to know how we can be compensated for all this interruption. it's two years and it's still going. we have objection to pay for the -- >> thank you very much. thank you very much. any other members of the public wish to speak in general public comment on this item? please step up. line up on the right-hand side. good afternoon. my property is 1380 newcomb and what happened, they tore up the sidewalk. they took all the overhead line
down and put underground lines. you can't hear? >> we can hear you. so, they went underground. they're in the process -- i didn't have the funds to take care of those -- i don't know what you call them, but they were things that -- those pipes were supposed to go on the house and i didn't have the money to take care of it. so, they put -- they connected -- they made some holes in the ground, in the sidewalk and they put a poll up on my house, had the wires connected to my house. ~ pole so, while they had black tar --
they had black tared it for a while. ~ i came down to city hall because i had a letter. i told them what i had to say about that. i told them -- they told me about pg&e, so, i kept calling everybody. and, so, when they mentioned pg&e, i called pg&e when i got the letter who to call, and they never got back to me. so, it had to be [speaker not understood] because somebody had fell on my property. and i don't know who that person is to this day. so, they cement it, then i got a letter saying that i should come to this -- >> thank you very much. again, you'll have an opportunity to zvictiontion with the d ~ speak with the dpw staffer after this set of public comments. next speaker. good afternoon, i'm representing my mother's house
at 285 saint charles avenue, san francisco. we got a notice of the repairs to the sidewalk that resulted in a total charge of $269. first of all, we were not aware of any defects of the sidewalk that was the homeowner's responsibility. according to this letter, it indicates that chapter 80 of the administrative code, which is not available to homeowners that i'm aware of, indicates that we are in violation of some sidewalk repairs. the only kind of sidewalk defects we have around the house are those crab grass that grows from under, underneath the sidewalk and is spreading the sidewalk all around the house. i'm not sure that that's our responsibility. and if it is, i have put in a call for mr. robert kwan from public works and have not gotten a call back as of yet. but i cannot see how the city
would dispatch enough people from the city employee, work in fixing the sidewalk to only cost $269. i don't know if that was an inch or a centimeter, but i would like to speak to someone about unfair charges because i don't think we should be obligate today pay that. thank you very much. ~ obligated to >> next speaker. hi, i have the property at 1750 la salle avenue. the city came out and tagged some squares for me to fix. i fixed the squares. i called the inspector. they came back out. well, he said he was coming back out. then i get another notice stating that they're not fixed. come to find out it was one of the squares that needed to put a tree in there. called the urban league. they said i cannot put a tree in there. so, they said to cement that.
i cemented everything i had. they fined me. i have proof the stuff has been fixed. permit fees have been -- permits have been filed with the office, but i'm still getting notices for having to come down here and i don't understand why. if everything has been fixed and i do have proof from the cement company that fixed my stuff. can somebody answer on why i keep getting notices, why am i getting fines for something i already completed? >> you'll have an opportunity to speak to the dpw staffer right after your comments. is this dp the clerk of the city? >> any other members of the public wish to speak in general public comment? seeing none i'm going to ask our dpw staffer if you could please escort members of the public that came to speak on this out into the foyer. and when you are finished with your conversation, if you could please let us know so you can report back and we will proceed to our next 3:00 p.m. special order. thank you. madam clerk, could you call our 3 p.m. special order items
related to mission bay and mission bay south? >> items 42 and 43 are board of supervisors sitting as a committee of the whole motion approved june 18, 2013 for public hearing to consider an ordinance approving a resolution ~ -- excuse me, a resolution amending the mission bay south redevelopment plan which modifies the land use designation for certain properties to add residential as a permitted use and increase the permitted residential density in the plan area. does not increase the allocation of tax increment under pre-sifting enforceable objectly san diego baytion and making requisite finding. >> this is a redevelopment plan [speaker not understood] in supervisor kim's district. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i do want to thank the board for having this hearing today as we sit as a commissioner william lee of the whole. sirens we first a doddthv the mission bay plan in 1998 and after years of community advocacy, it's exciting to findly watch this neighborhood take shape. there's been an existing
community in the mission bay for many years and they will soon be joined by thousands of more residential units as they come align 30% of which must be affordable for our families and our seniors. we're also lucky to already have such an engaged residency entering your neighborhood south beach rincon hill and mission bay. they have been great advocates for balanced development. but in short, that neighborhood infrastructure matches our city's robust housing development in this part of town. ~ ensure as many of you know, the plan included over 8,000 units of housing -- i'm sawyer, over 6,000 units of housing. ~ sorry 4.4 million scare feet of office, biotech and research space which includes [speaker not understood] and hospitals and neighborhood serving retail as well as the public safety building which will host our fire department and our police department southern station. library, and 49 acres of public park. this plan also included a hotel
for 500 units. this is the first time our board will be hearing any amendments to the redevelopment plan since our redevelopment agency was dissolved last year. so, it's interesting kind of to go through this same process. but as we near completion, there are changes that still need to be made to the plan that we put together over 15 engineers years ago. this new change being proposed ~ will allow the developer to have the option to develop a mixed use development which includes residential units as well as a hotel unit. after a study was done it was determined that a 500 unit hotel development may not be appropriate for the site, but reducing it in half up to 250 units along with 350 residential units would be something that would serve this neighborhood better. the mission bay citizens advisory community has endorsed this change conveying that a smaller hotel and additional residential units is in keeping with a need for housing while
the smaller scale hotel serve visitors to the biotech businesses and ucsf campus while l also pro serving hotel jobs providing living wage for families. a little more on the residential units. 50% of all the rental units will be affordable on-site and for the homeownership units that will be created, there will be a 20% off-site and that will be given. this is our first hearing as i mentioned on our redevelopment plan amendment, the dissolution. and i just want to thank the staff of the successor agency and the members of the citizens advisory committee for reviewing these plan changes and developing a process which brings these types of amendments to the full board. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor yee. >> thank you. i didn't realize it's been that long, 1998, my goodness. just a couple things i want to discuss about this plan.
one, it is the parcel that was put aside for or possibly a public [inaudible]. i know as the school board member, we had discussed and we brought it up -- in fact, when i first got in as school board member, the school district didn't even know about the parcel. what we realized was that the footprint of that particular parcel was going to be very small. i don't know where thing are in terms of -- whether things are finalized totally or whether -- so, the question for me would be whether or not the possibility of expanding the footprint so that you can build a school there rather than squeeze everything into a closet basically for a school.
i'm not too sure how to answer these questions, but the other concern i have is around child care, and i'm not real clear any more where that is at, whether or not there is any parcel put aside for child care. i don't know how many of the total 6,000 units will be for family. you're just talking about the affordable housing units, that would be almost nearly 2000 units of affordable housing in which you mention that it's going to be good for families and seniors [speaker not understood] 1,000 units or families. and, so, this should be at least 1,000 through 1500 kids and which if you divide it up by age, you can have several hundred preschoolers there from 0 to 5. again, they have the impact in our very limited child care slots in san francisco, and i
really want us to take that in consideration that, you know, we don't want to have those families -- which, again, with our city's philosophy of transit first, to have to have child care for a 1 year old or two-year old, 2 or 3 miles across town somewhere where it's going to impact those areas where it's very limited in terms of child care slots. so, i really want to get some sense of where we're going with that because we're going to run into a lot of problems. and i mentioned this more recently when i realized that many of these waterfront development a they're talking about thing, they talk about housing. they're talking about retail. they're talking about a lot of other thing. what they don't